Quibbling and Quarreling

Colonel William Mitchell, under court martial (TIME, Nov. 9 et seq.) , saw hot times in court last week. It seemed that the legal machinery developed more friction than efficiency. The lawyers of the defense and the prosecution objected and objected to their opponents’ course. In a goodly number of cases the prosecution was overruled, and there were persons to remark that, however able the Army’s trial judge advocates might be, they had not distinguished themselves as trial lawyers.

The cross-examination of Colonel Mitchell was completed. The prosecutors questioned him point by point concerning the statements for which he is on trial for “insulting” the Army and Navy. They did not succeed in drawing from him any very damaging admissions; he stuck to his story, which was not difficult to do since mostly matters of opinion and inference were at stake. Examples of the testimony:

“Do you know the number of flying hours in the Air Service has increased from 934 to 5,269 per fatality in the last five years?”

“I don’t know without referring to my notes, and I will say that that is a very misleading statement.”

“Are you prepared to say there is an increase of safety of 500%?”

“I am not.”

“Do you consider that you were sent to an out-of-the-way place, as you charged in your statements officers who tell the truth are?”

“I certainly do, so far as influencing air development is concerned.”

“Is San Antonio an out-of-the-way place?”

“So far as air development is concerned, yes.”

“Has the War Department a general order defining its air policy?”

“Yes, that’s it. It is not worth the paper it is written on, and is one of the most dangerous documents that could be gotten up for the national defense.”

The only really interesting point of the examination, although it had small direct bearing on the case, came when the prosecutor readtestimony given by Colonel Mitchell, then a signal corps officer, before a Congressional Committee in 1913. In the 1913 testimony Mitchell opposed a separate Air Service, and condemned disgruntled officers for making statements which might disorganize the service.

Colonel Mitchell grinned:

“I was a member of the General Staff then, and I never made a worse statement. I said a good many things then. That was before the War.”

After calling a few more witnesses the defense rested its case, and the prosecution began to call witnesses from a group of about 100 whom it had ordered to be ready to appear. The purpose of calling these witnesses was to contradict the testimony of the defense witnesses. Congressman Reid, counsel for Colonel Mitchell, attacked their testimony in crossexamination. He questioned one witness, trying to show lack of unity of command in the war games at Hawaii last summer. The witness, Major J. J. Bain, drew a distinction between “unity of command” and “unity of direction,” and Mr. Reid insisted on an explanation of the difference. In the midst of the examination Mr. Reid whirled around toward Brigadier General Edward L. King, a member of the Court, and exclaimed: “I object to what the member of the Court has said!”

“I wasn’t speaking to you but to my colleague,” replied General King.

“I know you weren’t speaking to me, but I heard it and so did the Court. I object to that remark and I want it put in the record. This cross-examination may seem tedious to you, but I have my duty to perform and I am going to perform it.”

“I am sorry,” said General King.

“I’m certainly surprised,” said Mr. Reid.

Some keen-eared persons thought the General had said to his colleague: “This is damned rot and ought to be stopped.”

One of the Generals on the Court was supposed to have said unofficially:

“It’s costing us each about $20 a day to stay in Washington. The trial has already lasted 30 days, which means the court members have spent about $600 apiece to remain here, while we all have to keep up our establishments at home. But our chief objection to sitting here is thinking that our own commands may be meanwhile going to hell.”